1. Field of the Invention
This invention pertains to a hair brush accessory. More specifically, the invention is comprised of an attachment for use with a variety of hair brush designs having different core and handle configurations, the attachment having a form suitable for attachment to the core of the particular brush on which it is disposed. The attachment is disposed over the bristles before using the brush so that hair which becomes entangled in the bristles can be removed by removing the attachment.
2. State of the Art
A hair brush has the annoying drawback of accumulating the hair it is designed to brush. This problem is as unavoidable as it is messy. Therefore, many brushes have been designed to overcome the problem of hair removal. A perusal of the prior art is instructive, however, in that it shows the general thinking of those skilled in the art as to how the problem must be solved.
G.B. Patent No. 685,956 issued to Saltzinger teaches a wire brush which has a plurality of bristle guides to maintain the wire bristles in an upright position. The bristle guides are holes in a plate, wherein the plate is an unremovable attachment. The plate is permitted to slide forward from the core surface at the base of the bristles until almost reaching the bristle tips. Hair is then removed from the bristles assuming that it is now easier to reach the hair because it has been forced to the bristle tips. Saltzinger is important not just because it is such an early design, but because it seems to have set the tone for almost every patent which followed.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,529,927 issued to Fisk apparently teaches a hairbrush with a slidable bristle cleaning plate which is attached to the face of the brush, similar to the arrangement of Saltzinger. The plate does not appear to be detachable from the brush. Like Saltzinger, the attachment appears to be custom designed to fit only the brush disclosed because of the unique attaching mechanism.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,553,242, issued to Dombitsky apparently teaches an attachment for cleaning brushes and combs. The attachment appears to be a disposable backing which must be formed of a mesh-like material which is capable of being pierced by the brush bristles or comb teeth. In a preferred embodiment, the attachment is a hollow, sock-like member which is inserted over the brush bristles and the bristles are then forced through the mesh. The attachment is then completely removed from the brush and disposed with the hair. Unlike the previous patents, Dombitsky is removable from the hair brush.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,108,305 issued to Peilet apparently teaches a brush having a bristle guide plate similar to Saltzinger and Fisk. The guide plate rests against the core surface until it is extended out from the core along the length of the bristles so that hair can be removed therefrom.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,110,305 issued to Surabian apparently teaches a hairbrush having a plate through which the bristles pass to push hair toward the bristle tips. Any novelty must be in the plate which appears to be recessed within the brush core.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,172,139 issued to Wire apparently teaches a brush with a cleaning plate with a different twist on the design of a non-removable plate. The cleaning plate comprises a bar attached at approximately a midpoint of the brush between the core and brush handle. Pivoting the plate forces hair from the bristles as the plate moves away from the brush face. A difference between the prior art already described is that the plate is not tight around the bristles, and actually does not appear to touch them. This probably limits the effectiveness of removing hair which is tightly entwined within the bristles.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,577,580 issued to Rand teaches two U-shaped clip members which pass through the back of the brush. The brush handle itself serves as the "plate guide" which tightly surrounds the bristles and moves forward along the length of the bristles to remove hair therefrom, similar to the Saltzinger type of customized hairbrush.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,886,617 issued to Labran apparently teaches a brush having a face plate through which bristles fit in guide holes. A plunger is connected to the face plate and extends through an intervening core member. Pressing the plunger again forces the face plate forward along the length of the bristles for hair removal.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,574,416 issued to Stewart apparently teaches a retractable brush in which the bristles are retracted inside the brush core. When retracted, the bristles are almost flush with the face plate of the core body.
The patents above demonstrate that those skilled in the art believe that hair is removed from the bristles of a brush by providing a face or guide plate through which the bristles are tightly fitted. Various lever means are then provided for moving the guide plate forwards along the length of the bristles almost until flush with the ends of the bristles. In the alternative, it is sometimes easier to think of the core member to which the bristles are attached as being moved away from the core, depending upon the brush design. Nevertheless, both designs basically comprise the elements of a face plate and a lever means for moving the face plate away from the brush. What is important to remember is that the single element common to all the designs is that they are each a custom designed brush. In other words, the face plate of each brush is not interchangeable with the core of any other brush without extensive modification. This is not only because of the unique face plate designs, but the lever means for moving the face plates all operate differently.
The only exception to the general rule above is found in the patents issued to Wire and Dombitsky. Wire teaches a pivoting face plate lever arm which fits loosely between rows of bristles. However, Wire is similar to the other designs in that the face plate is custom built and therefore only works in conjunction with a core member to which it is pivotally attachable.
Dombitsky teaches a design which is furthest from the teachings of all the other patents, but which also has drawbacks including the mesh-like material which the brush bristles must be capable of piercing. Some bristles are not suitable for this design and will be ruined if a mesh is forced down over them. Furthermore, if the mesh material is tight fitting, it is likely to be shredded when sliding it over the bristles because the mesh material is designed to be capable of being pierced by the bristles. If shredded, the mesh material is not likely to effectively remove hair. In the alternative, the mesh material will be so loose around the core in order to avoid tearing it when being put on, that it will likely interfere with use of the brush. A further disadvantage is that the mesh material is disposable and thus requires replacement often if the brush is to be kept clean.
Therefore it would be advantageous to overcome the limitation of having to customize the brush in order to remove hair so that the new system could be adaptable to virtually all brush shapes and bristle compositions. It would also be an advantage to have a reusable system which would not require replacement after only one use.